“ANITA IGUANA-TONGUE DUNN SPEAKS OF MAO WITH FORKED TONGUE”

When I thought I’d been grossly offended by the discourse from the Left — specifically, the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats — I found myself thoroughly and awfully disgusted while watching (with pained eyes) and listening to (with heavy and horrified heart) Anita Dunn, Obama White House Director of Communications, in a taped speech she tortured and contorted in June 2009.

Never have I seen a more reptilian individual as I see in Anita Dunn’s mannerisms and I use that term, “reptilian,” in a figurative sense, her abnormal mannerisms are serpentine, reptilian — in other words, quite disturbing, “not-human-like” in excess and abnormality. Dunn did not merely lick her lips on one or two occasions, she literally forced, insistently and continually, her tongue upon anyone in ear and eye-range.

Because any human using such body language (as Dunn was as recorded on this tape) is literally expressing lack of respect, low regard, for whoever it is they’re addressing. Dunn’s unruly tongue, then, is actually Dunn telling anyone and everyone (likely, the human race) that she doesn’t “like” them, that she has low regard or disdain for whoever it is to whom she’s aiming her words — regardless of what she (or anyone making such displays) says.

What is shown by Dunn is her body expressing her dislike for others: tongue used abnormally in speech to others such as protruding from the mouth — excessive tongue “showing” to others — to whoever is being addressed — and tongue displaying as demonstratively as Dunn does is not only indicative of animosity for whoever it is one is speaking to, but in Dunn’s case, her exceptional tongue-rolling, tongue-showing, this not only indicates animosity but is an overall expression of extreme animosity.

In Dunn’s behaviors as recorded, her tongue-displaying was not only evident but was abundant: she’s adament in her animosity — because her tongue-profusions, tongue-displaying, tongue-rolling around, lips-licking, tongue-caressing of her teeth (another expression that indicates a threat-display), all of that indicates excessive — excessive — animosity, and not animosity as anger or annoyance, but utter, complete disrespect, dislike.

Included in all that animosity and threatening behavior, Anita Dunn insisted upon an audience her glorified abnormal fondness of Mao, a man who is singly responsible for the deaths (and quite miserable deaths by wretched suffering, which he caused and did so with intention) of estimated 70 million human beings (if not more, some estimate the death toll attributed to Mao as upward to “78 million”).

Also note when you watch the video of Dunn’s June speech, that she puts her right arm up with hand upon her waist — she’s not only disrespectful of the audience, not only threatening them, she’s intolerant of them. This is Anita Dunn outing herself as utterly anti-social to such an extent, she’s impatient about it.

No isolated quotations from such an individual can ever be acceptable, regardless of who uses them: “Chairman Mao” was a mass-murderer of grotesque, unmeasurable proportions. Nothing he may have opined in the course of his life can ever grant his statements appropriateness.

Rather than the truth about the choices Mao made, it appears that all Dunn knows about Mao are the Potemkin Village myths sown by his apologists among the U.S. and European intellectual elitists in the 1950s and 1960s. This mythical Mao was wise, kindly, and selfless, a veritable Chinese Jesus.

But it is impossible to accept that vision of Mao after reading the full account of the Chinese dictator’s political career in British historian Paul Johnson’s “Modern Times,” the definitive, stark account of the rise, rule and ruin of totalitarianism throughout the 20th Century.

Here are just a couple of passages from Johnson that reveal the murderous truth about Dunn’s hero. First, Johnson describes Mao’s actions in the weeks immediately after winning the civil war: “Mao’s first act was to extend his ‘land reform,’ already begun in the North, to the entire country, It was aimed at ‘local bullies and evil gentry’ and he urged peasants to kill ‘not one or two but a goodly number of each.’ At least two million people perished, half of them the tyrannical owners of less than 30 acres.”

Mao thus, Johnson observed, “launched the largest nation on earth into a frenzy of violent activism which was to rival the social engineering of Hitler and Stalin.”

That systematic genocide was among Mao’s routine policies is seen in the continuous tragedy that was “land reform.” During the years between 1951 and 1953, for example, Mao conducted these campaigns with what Johnson describes as “great savagery.” Millions died after being convicted as “counter-revolutionaries,” an all-purpose criminal classification used to make short work of anybody who came under suspicion.

“All major towns held mass rallies at which social “enemies” were publicly denounced and sentenced,” Johnson wrote. “Over a few months, nearly 30,000 such meetings were held in Peking alone, attended by three million people. The papers published long lists of names every day of executed ‘counter-revolutionaries.’ In October 1951, it was stated that 800,000 cases had been dealt with in the first six months of the year.”

Estimates of the total number of people killed in these land reform campaigns of extermination ranged as high as 15 million, though Johnson cautions that “a figure of one to three milion is more likely.”

In any case, these two passages make clear that Anita Dunn’s hero was a man who thought nothing of decreeing the deaths of millions of people for no reason other than suspicion that they might not accept his ghastly totalitarian vision for China. To fully grasp what Mao did, just imagine here in America today millions of non-political middle-class Americans suspected of being Tea Party sympathizers being rounded up, tried, sentenced and executed merely on suspicion of their being opposed to “change we can believe in.”

On Friday (yesterday), October 16, 2009, the day after Glenn Beck’s broadcast that included the exposure of this ghastly June speech with deplorable declarations by Anita Dunn, Dunn pushed again into media with a resentful, quite cowardly series of statements in CNN, in which she not only did not own her own words but she tried despicably to hold “Republicans” at fault because, so Dunn’s troubled soul exclaimed, she once heard Lee Atwater (Republican) refer to a statement by Chairman Mao (yet Atwater certainly never declared Mao as “among [his] two favorite philosophers”).

So Anita Dunn retreated into what she knows best: lies, dishonesty, some sort of frenetic, blaming hyperbole. Which reveals she’s pinned — meaning, she’s been seen for who she is, heard for who she is, and a day after that, she’s obviously seeking cover: blame-storming.

Dunn’s disgraceful and cowardly dereliction of her own statements while attempting to (further) harass “Republicans” is more proof that this is one dreadfully abnormal individual. Dunn, by the way, is responsible for — at least stoking — the “war with FOX” campaign by the Obama Administration, including that aimed at Rush Limbaugh (fake “quotes” attributed to Rush Limbaugh used to denigrate him attributed to New York Law Firm). It’s indefensible, deplorable dereliction by Dunn (and the Obama Administration and all associated with this mess they’re engaged in) of anything sensible, reasonable, and ethically responsible. So of course, then, that Dunn admires Mao.

Footnote: the title of my post is a reprint of a comment I found in this article by “john P, Oct 17, 2009”.

UPDATE, July 2011: The article — and comments to that article — linked-to above that I make note of here has since been removed; but credit for the copy still goes to “john P” who wrote them in his comments to the now-removed content.